BHABATOSH PATTANAIK Vs. BINODINI PANIGRAHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant is the appellant against a confirming judgment.

(2.) Respondent as the plaintiff instituted a Money Suit No.20 of 1998 in the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonepur for realization of Rs.40,000/- from the defendant. Case of the plaintiff is that she was the registered owner of a trekker bearing Registration No.0R-15-0533. She wanted to sell the said trekker. The defendant agreed to purchase the same for a sum of Rs.85,000/-. On 10.3.1997 the defendant made a part payment of Rs.40,000/- to her. Thereafter, she delivered the possession of the vehicle to the defendant with a condition to pay the balance amount of Rs.45,000/-. The specific case of the plaintiff is that in spite of repeated request, the defendant paid only a sum of Rs.5,000/-. On 16.9.1997 the defendant executed a stamp paper agreement with a stipulation to pay the balance amount of Rs.40,000/- to her by 30.10.1997. But then the defendant did not pay the balance amount. She reported the matter at Boudh Police Station on 26.1.1998.

(3.) Pursuant to issuance of summons, the defendant entered appearance and filed a written statement contending inter alia that plaintiff was the benami purchaser of the trekker in question. Her son, Bidhan Chandra Panigrahi, was the real owner of the trekker. As the trekker was more than 20 years old and in bad condition, sale price was fixed at Rs.50,000/-. In pursuance of the contract between him and son of the plaintiff, he purchased the trekker at Rs.50,000/-. He made a part payment of Rs.45,000/- with an undertaking to pay the balance amount of Rs.5,000/- in the succeeding month. Bidhan Chandra Panigrahi after retaining the contract with him delivered the trekker to the defendant without connected documents i.e., the R.C.Book, route permit etc. He paid the balance amount of Rs.5,000/- on 25.4.1997 to Sri Bidhan Chandra Panigrahi. The defendant had specifically denied the assertion that there was a contract between the parties for purchase of the trekker at Rs.85,000/- and that the defendant had executed one stamp paper agreement.